The Selfless Chivalry of Pete Hegseth and the Selfish Chauvinism Promoting Women In Close Combat

[Twin Tiers Living 541]

 

By S.L. Nelson

January 30, 2025

 

During his confirmation hearing, political leaders launched a pointed critique of Pete Hegseth, with one of the most emotional attacks focused on his views about women in close combat. Hegseth has clearly stated that women are too valuable to be assigned high-risk roles while also recognizing and appreciating their significant contributions in other areas of the military.

Despite his commitment to recognizing women’s roles, the new defense secretary has been unfairly labeled a male chauvinist by his critics. This portrayal is not only inaccurate but also unjust, as his perspective is based on chivalry, not sexism. He faces scrutiny because opportunistic leaders encourage women to participate in close combat for their own self-serving reasons.

It raises an important question: why does Hegseth face such an unfair and distorted critique?

Army Expert Infantry Badge

In October 2014, two women earned the coveted U.S. Army Expert Infantry Badge (EIB). The award is only for infantry, and at the time, infantry jobs were closed to women. So how did this happen? According to the Master Sergeant at the EIB program office, when I called in 2014, CSM Spano (2ID Command Sergeant Major had submitted a request asking for allied soldiers to participate in the division EIB but had failed to include the detail that since the Republic of Korea (ROK) Army allowed women in the infantry, women would be participating. The Master Sergeant also added that “CSM Spano was politicking for the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) CSM position.

The two women who were awarded the EIB were Korean Army NCOs. In his eagerness to spotlight himself and his boss, CSM Spano took away a ‘first’ for American women— but delivered a public relations coup for the 2nd ID command team. “This is a really big deal,” he [Spano] said about Kim and Kwon earning the EIB. “This is history in the making because no other time has a woman ever actually earned and worn the EIB. This is monumental.”

The passing rate for EIB at the time was 8-10 percent, and according to Spano, 18 percent of the 2nd Infantry Division passed that year. However, 85.7 percent of the ROK NCOs who attempted the event (18/21) passed.

Why the disparity?

U.S. Army events and schools often include foreign partners. Participating in and passing events are usually considered critical team and alliance-building activities. None of the young American NCOs running EIB stations assumed their division CSM would leverage the event for political capital.

CSM Spano described the ROK female NCOs as being dwarfed by the rucksacks they carried during a forced 12-mile foot march during the event. However, young American male infantry NCOs described having to help these females carry their loads during the event. Any assistance on the road march disqualifies candidates from EIB.   

At the time, the jury was out on women in close combat at political levels. But not for an ambitious, tactical-level infantry division CSM.

“Spano [predicted] this will be the way of the future, as the Army looks to open combat arms MOSs to female soldiers. As long as there’s a standard, and everyone knows what the standard is, and you have to pass that standard, there are going to be soldiers – male or female – who are going to pass,” he said.

But did standards remain the same?

Marine Infantry Officer Course

In 2012, the Marine Corps proactively opened its grueling Infantry Officer Course (IOC) to women. Until 2017, 30 outliers and incredibly physically gifted women attempted and failed the course. In 2017, First Lt. Marina Hierl became the first female Marine officer to pass the course. However, there is a problem in dealing with outliers. It is not enough for politically charged policy.

Policy decisions require change. One female officer after 5-years is hardly the pace the DoD wants when political scrutiny focuses on numbers. Frequency and numbers must go up. Senior leaders pay lip service to standards remaining the same, but they cannot. Over the last four years (2021-2024), there has been a 50 percent pass rate for female infantry officers, peaking at 80 percent in 2021.  Military leadership gradually lowered the standards. There are now around 12 female marine officers as a result, but at what cost, as they and many of their male counterparts who would have never met previous standards now can deftly hurdle the lower mark. 

Ranger School or Lies Beget Lies

In 2015, two female U.S. Army officers became the first women to pass Army Ranger School, but their success was tainted by grading that the average male infantry officer would not have received in the course. In other words, their completion of the course encountered immediate contention, as some critics contended that they were given forbearances or second chances that male candidates routinely would not have received.

Moreover, my copy of the scores in the pre-ranger train up at Fort Carson in 2014 indicates that none of the women (including one of the first female officers to graduate) would have made the order of merit list for a unit to consider footing the bill for sending them to Ranger school. For a FORSCOM unit to send soldiers to Ranger School, they compete against other candidates on an OML. Candidates sent to Ranger School score well above the minimum standards for physically passing the course’s land navigation, physical, and patrolling portions. Of the women sent, all failed land navigation on the first try during the train up, and none completed the land navigation course to the maximum standard.

Logically, when you start with an inferior vintage and demand specific results, you get a product but a substandard one because you lower your standards to get it. There are 150 female Ranger-qualified leaders in the Army, but at what cost to the quality of every Ranger graduate?

The cost is crucial to the lethal but also to the moral qualities of the military.

When leaders lie to themselves and others, they lower their moral standards. According to three reputable Ranger Training Brigade (RTB) sources, one of the first female Ranger graduates received a DUI on Fort Moore. The command swept it under the rug. Why? Because females graduating from Ranger School was a public relations coup for the command, other senior leaders, and the subjective push to open close combat positions to women.

Objective Studies Dismissed For Subjective Reasons

Women can fight and kill in combat, but are they effective at it? The blunt reality is that they don’t match their male counterparts. This assessment comes down to basic biology. A comprehensive 2015 study by the United States Marine Corps found that “all-male units were faster, more lethal, and able to evacuate casualties in less time than mixed-gender units.”  However, advocates like Army COL (Ret) Ellen Haring, a champion of the push for gender integration of close combat units, criticized the study due to the lack of focus on outliers and highlighting those women who can perform the same as men in certain areas.

While the rare subset, best-performing women, can achieve a male standard, it is usually still the minimum. Whether women outperformed men or just met the standard, the Marine Corps study found that even top-performing women were more prone to fatigue and injury. The Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus, dismissed the study, suggesting that bias within the Marine Corps influenced the results.

“When you start out with that mindset, you’re almost presupposing the outcome,” he said. Secretary Mabus’ actions demonstrated chauvinism by denigrating women to the worst job in the world, close combat, against all objective metrics.

Further dismissing objective metrics, the services continue acquiescing to gender-based instead of gender-neutral scoring on their physical training tests. In 2021, Kristen Griest, one of the first two females to graduate Ranger School, wrote an article titled, With Equal Opportunity Comes Equal Responsibility, with this memorable quote, “It is wholly unethical to allow the standards of the nation’s premier fighting units to degrade so badly, just to accommodate the lowest-performing soldiers.”

Hegseth’s position aligns with Griest’s editorial. During his confirmation hearing, the former guardsman carefully explained that equality and equity are two completely different things. Hegseth follows a noble path, believing that true equality means women must meet the same standards as men. Some leaders twist this narrative, prioritizing the number of women in close combat over their qualifications. In doing so, they undermine everyone in uniform, sacrificing equality and safety for the allure of equity.

As a result, Pete Hegseth will face the brunt of senior military leadership’s deception and politicking throughout his tenure. The Secretary of Defense is and will continue to be under constant scrutiny due to the false narrative they have created. He will feel the brunt of senators’ and the media’s questioning his chivalrous position that women are not optimized for the worst jobs but the best jobs in the military.

If women are to serve in close combat, equal standards are non-negotiable. Yet, Pete Hegseth faces misplaced attacks fueled by bigoted leaders who yield to political convenience rather than uphold true equality.

In the end, it’s not fairness they want—but favor.

 

 

---

S.L. Nelson has served from the tactical to strategic level as a military officer. His views are his own and do not represent the position of the U.S. DoD.

This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.

 

[MsKreed 1,647]

3 hours ago, Twin Tiers Living said:

In 2021, Kristen Griest, one of the first two females to graduate Ranger School, wrote an article titled, With Equal Opportunity Comes Equal Responsibility, with this memorable quote, “It is wholly unethical to allow the standards of the nation’s premier fighting units to degrade so badly, just to accommodate the lowest-performing soldiers.”

This.

Her statement points out the underlying hazard of DEI (and all Affirmative Action programs, policies and metrics over the past several decades).

When I was a bartender struggling to pay bills back in the late 80’s, there was an NYSP customer who encouraged me to take the Trooper’s exam. He was certain I’d do well on the written test, and explained that the qualification system would increase my “comprehensive” score with a 10% adjustment (as an “underrepresented” female applicant). And that adjustment would offset whatever my physical score lacked....so I'd be "equally qualified" as a more physically qualified male applicant who scored similar on the written exam. 

That concept seemed absurd to me. The whole reason I pay taxes for police is to have protection in situations that I can’t resolve myself.

If I felt the need to call 911 to deal with an unruly drunk that “I” couldn’t handle, why the hell would I want “me” to show up?!?!?

[Adam 571]

8 hours ago, MsKreed said:

If I felt the need to call 911 to deal with an unruly drunk that “I” couldn’t handle, why the hell would I want “me” to show up?!?!?

Biology and Physiology stand ZERO chance against ideology silly...

Because emotions and beliefs, being so much easier to manipulate than facts, are thereby easiest to use for political gain. Your opponent could be 100% correct in their stance on ANY subject, Hell, they could even have the cure for cancer; paint them to be a big enough asshole/bigot/ whatever-phobe and the narrative becomes yours to construct